https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... at-once/p1
Socrates infers that the knowledge we possess is already within us. — Brett
I don't pretend to know what Socrates meant by that assertion, but I don't take it literally. Perhaps he was referring to the metaphor that man is a micro-cosmos, containing the essence of the whole world, including mathematics, within himself.
I don’t think he does mean it as a metaphor. The exercise he carried out wasn’t a metaphor. — Brett
The exercise only proved that the human brain works with an inherent logic : a mathematical logic, including basic arithmetic. If Socrates had asked for the answer to a calculus problem, do you think Meno would have had a "true opinion" about that kind of knowledge? Sages like Socrates often made bold general statements without qualification or limitation. They may be true metaphorically without necessarily being true in detail. Like Jesus' parables they are intended to convey a general impression, not to be taken literally or historically. Socrates was teaching by leading instead of by lecturing.
So does that deny the possibility of everything already existing? — Brett
I don't think that parable had any bearing on such an ontological question. It was just a demonstration of the Socratic method of indirect teaching, not of human omniscience, or a static universe.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... st-at-once
If our fate already exists out there, waiting for us, then does everything exist at once? And if so does that mean no time? — Brett
Sounds like you are talking about the notion of Eternalism, which is a modern version of Fatalism. Its scientific justification is based on the concept of Block Time, which is an inference from Einstein's Theory of Relativity. All I can say about that hypothetical possibility is, if you experience change (flowing time) in your world, and don't experience Stasis, then Eternalism is not real for you.
Regarding Fatalism, if you are anxious about the future, by all means consult a psychic or fortune-teller, and you will feel better. But it won't change your fate.
Eternalism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalis ... y_of_time)
It seems to me that when we invent we apply the knowledge we have if things that always existed, like maths. — Brett
Some people believe in Archetypes, while others believe in Platonic Forms. The problem is how can we access those abstractions in the real world.
I’m not sure what you mean in relation to that post. — Brett
Reality is a space-time world. But Archetypes and Forms are "things" (ideas) that are assumed to have always existed. Yet we only have access to them in imagination. Real things are temporal. So they couldn't have always existed. Only unreal things can exist eternally.
This is a problem, isn’t it? Things of the imagination are not real. Real things are temporal. Only unreal things can exist externally and because they don’t exist they don’t count. — Brett
It's the essential problem of Ontology (understanding of Being). Ideal non-things are un-real, because they are immaterial, and don't matter. But, if they "exist" eternally, then their Being is essential, even if they don't count.
"To Count" means to enumerate individual things. In a reductionist materialistic worldview --- abstractly imagined in the concept of money --- whatever is uncountable (i.e. immaterial) does not matter. So such abstract human concepts as "freedom, good and evil, love, idealism, success, morality, money" don't matter, because they don't exist in a physical form.
In a Holistic worldview, though, countable parts are important only in their contribution to the whole system. In a human system, imagination is un-real, but it can refer to concrete countable things in terms of abstract symbols, concepts, and ideas. In Plato's theory of ideal Forms, those eternal unreal concepts were of more value than the specific instances in the real world, because they are more than the sum of all things.
If our fate already exists out there, waiting for us, then does everything exist at once? And if so does that mean no time? — Brett
This may be off-topic, but Gevin Georbran, wrote a book presenting a novel approach to understanding the space-time universe in a larger context. At first it may seem mind-boggling, and it won't tell you anything about your personal Fate, but it does address the literal meaning of your thread title. Unfortunately, like too many geniuses, he committed suicide shortly after uploading the web site. Maybe he saw his own fate, and decided to deny Fate with an act of Will.
"This website literally journeys through the timeless realm, presenting a panoramic God’s eye view of the big picture. What is timelessness? To the surprise of many, all the world's greatest physicists such as Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, and also David Bohm, concluded during their lives that past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. What then is the timeless universe like?"
Everything Forever : Learning to see the timelessness of the universe.
http://everythingforever.com/
PS___I don't agree with all of his ideas, but this worldview was an influence on my own.
Phil Forum : Everything at Once
Re: Phil Forum : Everything at Once
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... at-once/p4
I can’t answer the question because I’m only just getting my head around the theory of Eternalism which I find supportive of my OP. — Brett
Some people interpret Block Time and Eternalism as-if our experience of sequential space & time is an illusion due to our warped view from Relativity. So, the speculative inferences they draw are pretty far-out. But we need to remember that Block Time is a mathematical theory with no empirical evidence. Therefore, unless you are a theoretical physicist, I wouldn't worry too much about the weird implications of Block Time.
In my own worldview, I assume that Eternity-Infinity (timelessness and spacelessness) is the default state of BEING. But nobody is "there" to experience the infinite possibilities except G*D. This notion contrasts with Multiverse Theory (again, no empirical evidence), in which Space-Time is the default, and physical mini-universes are popping-up all over the place. Since G*D is defined as "everything possible forever" (an assumption taken as an axiom) our space-time world is analogous to a tiny bubble in the ocean. This perspective is called PanEnDeism : all-in-G*D.
This means that we humans are creatures of space-time, and would be out of our element in eternity-infinity. Yet, our rational minds can transcend space-time, to imagine intangible and irrational concepts (ideas). So we too-often confuse those Ideal notions with Real things. If we were to leave the Real world, and go to the Ideal world, we would have to abandon our 3D bodies, and become fleshless ghosts. Unfortunately, we also have no empirical evidence of humans "crossing-over", just imaginary stories of "the other side". Hence, if you want to believe that you will someday experience Eternalism, no one can prove you wrong --- or right.
G*D : An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. So, the eternal Whole, of which all temporal things are a part, is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
PanEnDeism : Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between G*D (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of G*D that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
I can’t answer the question because I’m only just getting my head around the theory of Eternalism which I find supportive of my OP. — Brett
Some people interpret Block Time and Eternalism as-if our experience of sequential space & time is an illusion due to our warped view from Relativity. So, the speculative inferences they draw are pretty far-out. But we need to remember that Block Time is a mathematical theory with no empirical evidence. Therefore, unless you are a theoretical physicist, I wouldn't worry too much about the weird implications of Block Time.
In my own worldview, I assume that Eternity-Infinity (timelessness and spacelessness) is the default state of BEING. But nobody is "there" to experience the infinite possibilities except G*D. This notion contrasts with Multiverse Theory (again, no empirical evidence), in which Space-Time is the default, and physical mini-universes are popping-up all over the place. Since G*D is defined as "everything possible forever" (an assumption taken as an axiom) our space-time world is analogous to a tiny bubble in the ocean. This perspective is called PanEnDeism : all-in-G*D.
This means that we humans are creatures of space-time, and would be out of our element in eternity-infinity. Yet, our rational minds can transcend space-time, to imagine intangible and irrational concepts (ideas). So we too-often confuse those Ideal notions with Real things. If we were to leave the Real world, and go to the Ideal world, we would have to abandon our 3D bodies, and become fleshless ghosts. Unfortunately, we also have no empirical evidence of humans "crossing-over", just imaginary stories of "the other side". Hence, if you want to believe that you will someday experience Eternalism, no one can prove you wrong --- or right.
G*D : An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. So, the eternal Whole, of which all temporal things are a part, is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
PanEnDeism : Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between G*D (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of G*D that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
Re: Phil Forum : Everything at Once
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... at-once/p5
Timelessness and spacelessness, is a good default, or baseline. But it is a dead end when it comes to intellectual inquiry. — Punshhh
Yes. That's why I don't claim to have any direct knowledge about Enfernity. For my worldview, It's merely a baseline for everything else. It's the empty-set outside our Reality-set circle (the universe). For the purposes of "intellectual inquiry", it serves as Plato's realm of Ideal Forms.
Enfernity is a limiting assumption, as in a mathematical asymptote or the speed of light, we can approach the boundary of Reality in imagination, but never cross-over. However, by defining the limits of Reality, the not-concept allows us to understand everything we want to know by comparison to the absolute, which is both Zero and Infinity (nothing & ALL) : the brackets within which "we live and move and have our being".
Enfernity : My coinage for eternity-infinity. It's not two things, but a single un-defined state. For philosophical purposes, it's "defined" by putting a negative on everything we know in the real world : not-time, not-space, not-matter. And, since reality is bounded by, and originated in, space & time, we must assume that pre-existence was in non-space/non-time.
Like Plato's Ideality, Enfernity is the limitless Potential from which all Actual things are created. Potential is not-actual, un-realized, un-defined. But, since we experience the existence of "actual, real, and finite" in space-time, we can assume their origin was in a timeless, spaceless state with the power to transform and enform into the things we know.
Timelessness and spacelessness, is a good default, or baseline. But it is a dead end when it comes to intellectual inquiry. — Punshhh
Yes. That's why I don't claim to have any direct knowledge about Enfernity. For my worldview, It's merely a baseline for everything else. It's the empty-set outside our Reality-set circle (the universe). For the purposes of "intellectual inquiry", it serves as Plato's realm of Ideal Forms.
Enfernity is a limiting assumption, as in a mathematical asymptote or the speed of light, we can approach the boundary of Reality in imagination, but never cross-over. However, by defining the limits of Reality, the not-concept allows us to understand everything we want to know by comparison to the absolute, which is both Zero and Infinity (nothing & ALL) : the brackets within which "we live and move and have our being".
Enfernity : My coinage for eternity-infinity. It's not two things, but a single un-defined state. For philosophical purposes, it's "defined" by putting a negative on everything we know in the real world : not-time, not-space, not-matter. And, since reality is bounded by, and originated in, space & time, we must assume that pre-existence was in non-space/non-time.
Like Plato's Ideality, Enfernity is the limitless Potential from which all Actual things are created. Potential is not-actual, un-realized, un-defined. But, since we experience the existence of "actual, real, and finite" in space-time, we can assume their origin was in a timeless, spaceless state with the power to transform and enform into the things we know.
Re: Phil Forum : Everything at Once
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... at-once/p5
Edit: by non presentism I actually meant mysticism. — Brett
Presentism is the view that only actual & physical & temporal things exist. A more general term would be Realism. But human discourse has always included abstract concepts that are not actual, or physical, or real in any space-time sense. Is Beauty present? Is Love a thing?
My response to the Either/Or attitude, that conflates not-present or un-real with Mysticism, is the BothAnd principle, and the notion of Meta-Physics. Mystical and Magical concepts take advantage of the ambiguity of Abstraction to deceive those who are confused about what is Present and what they imagine to be present. In such cases it's good to be a little skeptical, but don't throw-out the Beauty with the Bullsh*t.
BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Edit: by non presentism I actually meant mysticism. — Brett
Presentism is the view that only actual & physical & temporal things exist. A more general term would be Realism. But human discourse has always included abstract concepts that are not actual, or physical, or real in any space-time sense. Is Beauty present? Is Love a thing?
My response to the Either/Or attitude, that conflates not-present or un-real with Mysticism, is the BothAnd principle, and the notion of Meta-Physics. Mystical and Magical concepts take advantage of the ambiguity of Abstraction to deceive those who are confused about what is Present and what they imagine to be present. In such cases it's good to be a little skeptical, but don't throw-out the Beauty with the Bullsh*t.
BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests